Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Trav Le Bleu

Also In The News - part 3

By Trav Le Bleu, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

We can also ignore the European Court of Human Rights too. We don't believe in human rights, Johnny Foreigner! Which puts us on a level playing field with Russia. Ypa!

It's a common misconception that the European Court of Human Rights is the only source of human rights, and without it we don't have the right to vote, the right to not be jailed, the right to life even.  It isn't true.  It's a stupid idea, frankly.  

 

These are the rights that the ECR conveys.

 

  • Article 2: the right to life
  • Article 3: the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
  • Article 4: the prohibition of slavery and forced labour
  • Article 5: the right to liberty and security
  • Article 6: the right to a fair trial
  • Article 7: the prohibition of retrospective criminal penalties
  • Article 8: the right to private and family life
  • Article 9: the freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • Article 10: the freedom of expression
  • Article 11: the freedom of assembly and association
  • Article 12: the right to marry
  • Article 13: the right to an effective national remedy for breach of these rights
  • Article 14: the prohibition of discrimination in the protection of these rights

The UK has also ratified Protocol No. 13 to the Convention on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, as well Protocol No. 1, which contains three additional rights:

  • Article 1 of Protocol No.1: the right to free enjoyment of property
  • Article 2 of Protocol No.1: the right to education
  • Article 3 of Protocol No.1: the right to free and fair elections

 

Can you seriously be saying that the UK, along with all those other countries around the world that aren't in the ECHR, don't have or support any of those rights?

 

There is certainly a school of thought that says human rights in the UK should be codified by our elected representatives and not by foreign judges.  Presumably as a virulent opponent of UK's own brand of rights such as habeas corpus (which we could now choose to fully enforce again, albeit so far as I know we haven't) then you would support at least this aspect of government by foreign diktat.

Edited by dsr-burnley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a common misconception that the European Court of Human Rights is the only source of human rights, and without it we don't have the right to vote, the right to not be jailed, the right to life even.  It isn't true.  It's a stupid idea, frankly.  

 

These are the rights that the ECR conveys.

 

  • Article 2: the right to life
  • Article 3: the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
  • Article 4: the prohibition of slavery and forced labour
  • Article 5: the right to liberty and security
  • Article 6: the right to a fair trial
  • Article 7: the prohibition of retrospective criminal penalties
  • Article 8: the right to private and family life
  • Article 9: the freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • Article 10: the freedom of expression
  • Article 11: the freedom of assembly and association
  • Article 12: the right to marry
  • Article 13: the right to an effective national remedy for breach of these rights
  • Article 14: the prohibition of discrimination in the protection of these rights

The UK has also ratified Protocol No. 13 to the Convention on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, as well Protocol No. 1, which contains three additional rights:

  • Article 1 of Protocol No.1: the right to free enjoyment of property
  • Article 2 of Protocol No.1: the right to education
  • Article 3 of Protocol No.1: the right to free and fair elections

 

Can you seriously be saying that the UK, along with all those other countries around the world that aren't in the ECHR, don't have or support any of those rights?

 

There is certainly a school of thought that says human rights in the UK should be codified by our elected representatives and not by foreign judges.  Presumably as a virulent opponent of UK's own brand of rights such as habeas corpus (which we could now choose to fully enforce again, albeit so far as I know we haven't) then you would support at least this aspect of government by foreign diktat.

I'm not sure that "the British way of doing things" is any better or any worse than most countries.

 

I believe that a lot of regulations surrounding workers rights can no longer be enforced, resulting in those lovely big business firms mostly treating their staff as disposable commodity.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

They don’t seem overly gloomy about the future - revenues up, investment ongoing with more significant investment planned for the future 

 

https://www.scottishfinancialnews.com/articles/brewdog-records-third-year-of-losses-despite-growing-revenues#:~:text=Despite posting pre-tax profits,trading conditions after the pandemic.

 

And in terms of everyone chipping in there’s the CEO with a personal worth estimated at around £262 million, the executives on six figure salaries and the 1500 or so employees having their hourly rate set at the minimum wage to £11.44 an hour with the company having previously committed to paying the living wage at £12 per hour 

 

As I understand it the business in the uk has around 2,250 employees of whom approximately 1500 are paid at the lowest rate. If all of those 1500 earn an extra 56p per hour for a 40 hour week that would cost the company  just under £1.75m p/a  (1500 x 40 x 52 x 0.56). That’s peanuts to a company with a record breaking 2023  turn over of £320 million. 

 

I thought that many businesses profess that their employees were one of their most important assets but yeah, the wage cut for the lowest paid staff seems fair and reasonable and a positive and ethical way to invest in the future 🤔

The CEO's wealth is in his share of the business I guess?  No doubt some has been taken out in dividends, but a 3rd year of loss making usually means if you want to keep investing your financial backers whether banks or investors will demand some actions to improve profitability.  1.75M is not peanuts when you are losing money, and that is not a one time thing, that is every year forever, with inflation.  I am not saying it is the right thing necessarily, but it is a lot more complicated than CEO is rich so they shouldn't do it.  I am sure those employees if they feel they can earn more elsewhere will leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lionator

Lionator

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a common misconception that the European Court of Human Rights is the only source of human rights, and without it we don't have the right to vote, the right to not be jailed, the right to life even.  It isn't true.  It's a stupid idea, frankly.  

 

These are the rights that the ECR conveys.

 

  • Article 2: the right to life
  • Article 3: the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
  • Article 4: the prohibition of slavery and forced labour
  • Article 5: the right to liberty and security
  • Article 6: the right to a fair trial
  • Article 7: the prohibition of retrospective criminal penalties
  • Article 8: the right to private and family life
  • Article 9: the freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • Article 10: the freedom of expression
  • Article 11: the freedom of assembly and association
  • Article 12: the right to marry
  • Article 13: the right to an effective national remedy for breach of these rights
  • Article 14: the prohibition of discrimination in the protection of these rights

The UK has also ratified Protocol No. 13 to the Convention on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, as well Protocol No. 1, which contains three additional rights:

  • Article 1 of Protocol No.1: the right to free enjoyment of property
  • Article 2 of Protocol No.1: the right to education
  • Article 3 of Protocol No.1: the right to free and fair elections

 

Can you seriously be saying that the UK, along with all those other countries around the world that aren't in the ECHR, don't have or support any of those rights?

 

There is certainly a school of thought that says human rights in the UK should be codified by our elected representatives and not by foreign judges.  Presumably as a virulent opponent of UK's own brand of rights such as habeas corpus (which we could now choose to fully enforce again, albeit so far as I know we haven't) then you would support at least this aspect of government by foreign diktat.

I'd rather be held to account by a treaty as you never know the intentions of those further down the line. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxy boxing

foxy boxing

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Let's hope this doesn't give Sunak a political poll boost or he'll have boots on the ground in Yemen in seconds. 

Doubt very much they'll have boots on the ground unless they are special forces. Like Iraq British troops would face attacks from Iran backed militia. At the moment its all a proxy war between Iran and the west. Could it ever develop to a full scale war with Iran. Iran is being backed by Russia. The west would love to topple the regime in Iran, but how to do that without starting world war III.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, bovril said:

iirc a lot of people wanted to cut down on immigration from Europe and make it easier for people from e.g. India to come. It was a big part of the campaign. I always thought that was a bit weird considering the potential numbers involved, but it was definitely a thing. 

Yep. Farage himself was championing it for a while. “The people of India and Australia have more in common to Brits  that the people of Poland” (paraphrasing) and similar quotes were a common amongst leavers. “Commwealth not common market” was also a slogan of many Brexiteers for many years. Don’t understand any Brexiteer would be annoyed by the explosion of immigration from former UK colonies, it was a big part of the leave campaign’s goals.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Yep. Farage himself was championing it for a while. “The people of India and Australia have more in common to Brits  that the people of Poland” (paraphrasing) and similar quotes were a common amongst leavers. “Commwealth not common market” was also a slogan of many Brexiteers for many years. Don’t understand any Brexiteer would be annoyed by the explosion of immigration from former UK colonies, it was a big part of the leave campaign’s goals.

I'm not convinced the average leave voter who wanted a reduction in immigration from the EU fully grasped that immigration from other parts of the world would increase, even though some in the leave campaign may have admitted as such. I think it has come as a shock for a lot of leave voters. Last year I spoke to a leave-voting neighbour who seemed genuinely surprised by it. But that's what you voted for, I told him. "No I bloody didn't," he replied. 

Edited by ClaphamFox
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

I'm not convinced the average leave voter who wanted a reduction in immigration from the EU fully grasped that immigration from other parts of the world would increase, even though some in the leave campaign may have admitted as such. I think it has come as a shock for a lot of leave voters. Last year I spoke to a leave-voting neighbour who seemed genuinely surprised by it. But that's what you voted for, I told him. "No I bloody didn't," he replied. 

Personally I always thought it was more the view that when many romanticise the commonwealth they think of it as being the rich English speaking (and let’s be honest here - white) countries i.e. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and maybe the rich parts of East Asia I.e. Singapore, Hong Kong than people coming from India, Pakistan, the Caribbean or Africa which is where the vast majority of the population of the commonwealth actually is. I remember an interview with Farage how he was romanticising how people from Australia, Canada and New Zealand saw Britain as “the motherland”. 

 

There was also the talk of CANZUK during the referendum and if you see most polls from all 4 countries, they’re overwhelmingly in favour of freedom of movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and NZ. When it comes to India or Jamaica for example, nowhere near the same.

 

Similarly, Farage himself in the lead up to the referendum said he nor UKIP wanted a referendum until 2004 when many Eastern European countries joined. If the EU was just the rich countries of west and central  Europe I.e. UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Benelux, the Nordics, Switzerland and Austria and the sunny holiday/retirement countries in the Mediterranean of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus and Malta I don’t think leaving the eu would’ve even been on anyone’s radar.

 

Let’s not forget those distasteful campaigns in the lead up to the referendum of how Turkey was supposedly on the brink of joining (despite the fact EU had categorically said they can’t join with Erdogon in charge) and 80million Turks were about to enter the UK to escape Erdogan or something. I remember seeing several billboards around Warwick and Leamington Spa at the time of the referendum whipping up fear about Turkey joining  

 

Ultimately, people will claim they don’t but if it’s immigrants from other rich countries like Canada or Denmark very few care, immigrants from India or Romania are always used to drive the fear campaigns a lot more. 

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Personally I always thought it was more the view that when many romanticise the commonwealth they think of it as being the rich English speaking (and let’s be honest here - white) countries i.e. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and maybe the rich parts of East Asia I.e. Singapore, Hong Kong than people coming from India, Pakistan, the Caribbean or Africa which is where the vast majority of the population of the commonwealth actually is. I remember an interview with Farage how he was romanticising how people from Australia, Canada and New Zealand saw Britain as “the motherland”. 

 

I think also it was because EU workers had the same working rights as Brits which some people resented. A lot easier to push around workers on a visa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, bovril said:

I think also it was because EU workers had the same working rights as Brits which some people resented. A lot easier to push around workers on a visa. 

I think that while a fair point and likely true of some of the richer leave voters and business owners. I don’t think it’s anything the average voter cared/knew anything about. I’ve only become more convinced in the years since that a frightening number of voters didn’t even know what the EU or freedom of movement for people goods and services was or did. Even Boris Johnson supposedly didn’t understand what the customs union was.

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I think that while a fair point and likely true of some of the richer leave voters and business owners. I don’t think it’s anything the average voter cared/knew anything about. I’ve only become more convinced in the years since that a frightening number of voters didn’t even know what the EU or freedom of movement for people goods and services was or did. Even Boris Johnson supposedly didn’t understand what the customs union was.

Thinking back to the campaign now it just feels a bit like the death of Diana or the 2000 paedophile controversy. A month or so of total concentrated insanity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The Horizon scandal gets worse...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-67950593.amp

One thing I’d like answered is why the numbers were changed. Ok, so there’s outside connection to Horizon possible and it seems that people at Fujitsu could alter the numbers at whim. So a question I have is why. Why change the numbers? Was there some sort of attempted fraud? Incompetence? People pissing around? Or just bugs in the software that were denied?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Free Falling Foxes

Free Falling Foxes

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dunge said:

One thing I’d like answered is why the numbers were changed. Ok, so there’s outside connection to Horizon possible and it seems that people at Fujitsu could alter the numbers at whim. So a question I have is why. Why change the numbers? Was there some sort of attempted fraud? Incompetence? People pissing around? Or just bugs in the software that were denied?

Indeed.

Also, it would appear the 'changes' were always to the detriment of the post master/mistress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FoyleFox

FoyleFox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dunge said:

One thing I’d like answered is why the numbers were changed. Ok, so there’s outside connection to Horizon possible and it seems that people at Fujitsu could alter the numbers at whim. So a question I have is why. Why change the numbers? Was there some sort of attempted fraud? Incompetence? People pissing around? Or just bugs in the software that were denied?

A very good question. Although, it was confirmed that Fujitsu could access the system remotely, the sheer volume of incorrect transactions makes me believe they were system errors. Surely no one at Fujitsu needed to make or could have made that many manual alterations?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted

Or - and I say this as a “for instance” rather than making a specific accusation - someone or some people consistently skimming small amounts into a separate place for their own use (maybe figuring that nobody would even notice), then realising they couldn’t say anything when all this came to light because they’d incriminate themselves.

 

That said, the incident they showed where the shortfall kept doubling every time the woman tried to fix it following advice from the never-less-appropriately-named “helpline”, it wouldn’t surprise me if there were bugs as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BKLFox

BKLFox

Posted
Posted

As well as potential bugs the Series also suggested that there was no test environment & therefore all training was done on a live system. Bear in mind this system was brand new so Fujitsu staff would be using it to train as well as helpline staff all in real time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...